Now Microsoft is left staring at Apple's fiscal
third quarter, which featured sales of 3.27 million iPads.
Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer commented on a recent call to analysts
[DOCX],
"Apple has done an interesting job of putting together a
synthesis and putting a product out, and in which they've -- they
sold certainly more than I'd like them to sell, let me just be clear
about that. We think about that. We think about that in competitive
sense."

Ballmer made it clear that his company is not
interested in pursuing a separate OS for tablets like Apple (the iPad
uses a variant of the same tweaked and stripped down version of OS X
found in the iPad). He states, "We’re coming.
We’re coming full guns. The operating system is called
Windows."

Windows tablets will soon get a boost from
Intel's upcoming
Oak Trail low
power CPU that's perfect for mobile applications, according to
Ballmer. Oak
Trail is
Intel's name for its upcoming successor
to the Atom series of processors which will launch in early
2011. Among other things it features full 1080p video and HDMI
support, all while reportedly cutting power consumption 50
percent.

Ballmer insists that Windows tablets are just around
the river bend, stating, "Some of you will say, well, when?
When? And I say, As soon as they're ready. They'll be shipping as
soon as they are ready. And it is job one urgency around here."

The
real question, though, might be -- who? ASUS has
already ditched
Windows CE for Linux in its smaller upcoming tablet (the
larger 12.1" still presumably uses Windows 7) and HP is using
webOS from recently acquired Palm instead of Windows 7.
That leaves a handful of other players -- MSI, Lenovo, Acer, and Dell
(among others). However, some of those -- like Dell -- are
considering instead jumping ship to Google's Android OS.

At
this point it's anybody's game to step up and challenge Apple.
Windows 7, webOS, and Android seem the top contenders. The
first Android tablet (or Mobile Internet Device, if you prefer), the
Dell Streak, will reportedly hit
before the end of the month in the U.S. A 5-inch model
will come first, followed by others.

With Android being the
first to hit the market, Microsoft may be left vying for third place
in the tabletsphere. And that's something that's bound to get
Ballmer real worked up.

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

quote: during his rule, he started the foundations that would drive the growth

Exactly my point. He fixed systemic problems and aligned economy right, now China is fixing it quickly by building dozens of atomic power plants as a foundation for the future while US is "investing" in green solar/wind smug. Both countries stopped idiots that prevented the growth - Chile stomped on commies and China stomped on green freaks. You see the results by yourself.

These threads go all over the place. We've gone from Microsoft and Apple discussing tablets to the governments of Chile (wtf?) and China. So lets veer this back to the topic at hand.

Microsoft is acknowledging the fact that Apple has a major head start (not an easy task for one company to say another company beat them to the punch). They are making it its highest priority NOW because they more or less finished with Windows Phone 7 OS (which doesn't look all that impressive to me. The lack of simple multitasking functionality and lack of apps is a real turn off for me).

What I find interesting as you put that they only did good during this time, which is the contrary. First and most important, free speech and transparency helps societies progress, and while Chile's dictatorship may have set the foundations for future growth, the cons outweight this.

Having a diverse and multi-cultured population is good for any country, as it helps keep goverments in check and brings discussions about actions the government will take, so that it does not impact negatively on the population. Of course, open societies are susceptible to extremes, but these, as long as are kept in check, don't have a major impact in society. One example are terrorist, which compose a really small minority everywhere (not only muslims have these, as you can see the IRA, ETA, FARCS and others) and need to be dealt with the correct means (not only war, but fighting economic issues in the countries that they gather members, because, lack of perspectives is the biggest way to conquer members into crime or terrorism)

Free app market without app censorship does not help the platform progress, Apple's censorship works better. Very similar to what Pinochet has done actually. Striking similarity with very bright economic results in both cases.

quote: the cons outweigh this

Not in the case with Apple's app market censorship.

Also the cons do not always outweigh the positives. There were cases in history where prompt removal of free speech and civil freedom have actually saved societies from bigger evil. Case in point - Russia and Finland. When Russians suffered communist revolution in 1917 nobody came to help, there was noone to quickly eradicate the danger and wipe out all the commies. Hence Russia suffered 70 years of red terror and now is mostly destroyed, unable to create any meaningful modern economy because all the smart and strong people (entrepreneurs mostly) fled the country during these 70 years.

Compare it with Finland which also suffered a commy revolution in 1918, but Finns were much more lucky because unlike Russians they happen to have a strong dictator - Mannerheim, who quickly killed all the commies in the country. His bloody initial policy turned out to be correct, if you compare what is modern Finland vs what is modern Russia.

In military parlor this is also called a preemptive strike, and when you strike to kill a few people quickly to avoid larger disaster - this is not your lovely freedom of speech.

quote: Free app market without app censorship does not help the platform progress, Apple's censorship works better. Very similar to what Pinochet has done actually. Striking similarity with very bright economic results in both cases.

One has nothing to do with the other. Apple does not kill those who create apps that don't adhere to their rules. They do have one thing in common: both were not in favour of the people, only of themselves. Btw, Apple may is under investigation regarding this.

quote: Not in the case with Apple's app market censorship. Also the cons do not always outweigh the positives. There were cases in history where prompt removal of free speech and civil freedom have actually saved societies from bigger evil. Case in point - Russia and Finland. When Russians suffered communist revolution in 1917 nobody came to help, there was noone to quickly eradicate the danger and wipe out all the commies. Hence Russia suffered 70 years of red terror and now is mostly destroyed, unable to create any meaningful modern economy because all the smart and strong people (entrepreneurs mostly) fled the country during these 70 years. Compare it with Finland which also suffered a commy revolution in 1918, but Finns were much more lucky because unlike Russians they happen to have a strong dictator - Mannerheim, who quickly killed all the commies in the country. His bloody initial policy turned out to be correct, if you compare what is modern Finland vs what is modern Russia.

Interesting point, you just forgot one thing, Russia's problems do not come because of the communist revolution of 1917, and yes due the totalitarian state it became later. In fact, because of this totalitarian state, those communists that opposed the regime where murdered (trotsky, for one).

Also, here's another example of totalitarian government: Nazi Germany! No free of speech (those against the Reich faced jail or execution). Results: huge war, 6 million jews murdered and around 50 million people dead as results of the war!

quote: In military parlor this is also called a preemptive strike, and when you strike to kill a few people quickly to avoid larger disaster - this is not your lovely freedom of speech.

Right, cause that is worked just fine, right? I remember the US did this in Vietnam, now Iraq. What did it achieve, besides a huge debt?

Yeah, as if people do not enjoy the booming Chilean economy (brought by dictator Pinochet) and booming iPhone/iPad app market (brought by dictator Jobs). You're trying to say that the healthy economy as well as healthy app market serve only the creators of this economy or this app market? And people do not benefit at all? Well, an idiot may agree with you, but not the smart person for sure.

quote: due the totalitarian state it became later

Totalitarian state was a direct consequence of commies taking power in 1917. You didn't notice the similarity between Russia and all the other commie countries, did you? In every country where commies took power (Cuba, North Korea, China, etc) the state turned to totalitarian pretty quickly. You should learn history better, before posting here. Seriously.

quote: Nazi Germany

Hitler was a stupid dictator, not the smart one. He was a racist (meaning he was stupid) and he started a war with the whole world, which was again a (second) epitome of stupidity. Pinochet or Mannerheim only suppressed internal opposition like commies, they never started big wars, especially with multiple countries like Hitler did. Why? Because they were SMART dictators. I never said ALL dictators in general are good, read my original posts again if you didn't understand that.

quote: What did it achieve

You better ask yourself what would it NOT achieve if South Korea were lost to commies and UAE were lost to Saddam. Wanna leave in a world where BIG sh1t rules? Your choice, but I want to live in the world where the sh1t is not given a single fu*king chance to grow big and so it's shut down with a preemptive strike. Asian commies and Soviet Union got a blow from the US and hence South Korea survived, same with Persian Gulf countries, who quietly thank US for saving them from crazy lunatic in Baghdad.

Perks, don't use a topic you know nothing about to make your vague point.

I lived in Russia for the first 14 years of my life and the reason Russia has experience downturn (what you call "mostly destroyed" can only partly be attributed to unsustainable levels of military spending in the Soviet Union. The bigger problem was that following the "Perestroyka" the level of corruption on all levels of democratic goverment reached levels unseen before in history of Man. In fact, democracy at that time was referred to as "dermocracy" by the populace which literally translates as "sheetocracy".

In regards to all "smart and stong people" leaving the country, explain to me how the Soviet Union has managed the scientific and technological breakthroughs, how Russia is currently the leading exporter of arms in the world and why is that they have some of the most reliable space technology in the world?

You overestimate Mannerheim's power at that time. The "commy revolution" you speak of was a bloody civil war with an almost 50-50 division of forces (or well, mostly ordinary people) in active combat. You can't make history fit your arguments... Besides, the Russians also had their fair share of visionary dictators, both in the Tsar as in the communist period.

In hindsight, Finland was damn lucky to have chosen the path they did, becoming one of the world's most affluent, educated and democratic nations, instead of slowly getting pulled into the abyss of communist despair like Russia and large parts of Eastern Europe.

Apart from your example being wrong and irrelevant, I don't understand how you can link a few potential historic cases where prompt removal of free speech and civil freedom might have improved a crisis situation with Apple's app store, a stupid shop that sells trivial software for a gadget mobile phone. Are you really comparing Apple's app store with the Finnish civil war?